home

Obama to Announce Moratorium on Drilling Permits

By Jeralyn, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Thu May 27, 2010 at 08:18:09 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

President Obama will announce a moratorium on oil drilling today:

President Barack Obama planned to announce Thursday that a moratorium on new deepwater oil drilling permits will be continued for six months while a presidential commission investigates, a White House aide said.

Controversial lease sales off the coast of Alaska will be delayed pending the results of the commission's investigation, and lease sales planned in the Western Gulf and off the coast of Virginia will be canceled, the aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of a midday Obama news conference.

BP says it should know this afternoon if Top Kill is working. And if it falis?

If the top kill fails, BP says it has several backup plans, including sealing the well's blowout preventer with a smaller cap, which would contain the oil.

< American Idol Finale: Live Thread | Hearings Today on U.S. Drug Aid to Mexico >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama to Announce Moratorium on Drilling Permits | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    This is nice (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 27, 2010 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    but is this just continuing the current moratorium that allows for drilling permits and environmental waivers?

    In the days since President Obama announced a moratorium on permits for drilling new offshore oil wells and a halt to a controversial type of environmental waiver that was given to the Deepwater Horizon rig, at least seven new permits for various types of drilling and five environmental waivers have been granted, according to records.

    The records also indicate that since the April 20 explosion on the rig, federal regulators have granted at least 19 environmental waivers for gulf drilling projects and at least 17 drilling permits, most of which were for types of work like that on the Deepwater Horizon shortly before it exploded, pouring a ceaseless current of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. link
    Nothing in writing (none / 0) (#2)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 27, 2010 at 09:47:30 AM EST
    Apparently, the moratorium was announced but there was never anything in writing.  This morning, another MMS head bit the dust.

    Parent
    Don't think so (none / 0) (#4)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 27, 2010 at 09:48:32 AM EST
    But what I've read about those permits and waivers in any case is that they aren't as bad as it sounds, that they were for changes, some of them safety-related, to existing operating wells.

    But the news just came across that the head of MMS has FINALLY just been fired.  That should help some, if only to put the fear of God into the rest of them.

    Also, LA Times is reporting as of just a few minutes ago that BP says the "top hat" thing has been successful and that the spill has essentially been stopped, but nobody else is reporting that.

    Parent

    Fired MMS head (none / 0) (#8)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    it turns out, is not some evil Bush holdover but a recent (April '09) Obama admin appointee.  And her firing apparently has more to do with her failure to appear at a Congressional hearing than anything else.


    Parent
    Proving once again, apparently, that (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Anne on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    appearances ARE everything...

    [sorry, couldn't help myself]

    Parent

    As lambert would say, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:32:48 AM EST
    "rim shoot."

    Parent
    Ken Salazar was appointed January 2009, (none / 0) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:50:47 AM EST
    and it would be appropriate  if he was asked to take that long walk on the plank along with Elizabeth Birnbaun.  President Obama needs a real, dramatic fresh start at the Department of Interior, someone like Al Gore.

    Parent
    What I want to know (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:25:43 AM EST
    Did MMS sign off on the BP decision to displace with sea water instead of drilling mud?  Did MMS know that the blowout preventer had sustained some pretty serious damage four weeks earlier?

    Parent
    Its an interesting question (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 01:07:23 PM EST
    but as a lay person I doubt MMS did or was supposed to. They approved an apparently faulty well design tho. And it appears BP wanted to hurry things along, but all the facts are not out yet. Still, this is a good article on What Went Wrong - OilDrum. Here's a little snip:

    What can be addressed now is the larger issue that a flawed, risky well plan for the MC 252 well was approved by the MMS, and BP, Anadarko and Mitsui management. Similar or identical plans were undoubtedly approved and used by many operators on other wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico. A plan that does not include enough cement to overlap the final and previous casing strings, and that does not require running a cement-bond log to ensure the integrity of the seal is a defective plan. The fact that there have not been blowouts on previous wells does not justify the approval and use of an unsafe plan.


    Parent
    She was there on Tuesday (none / 0) (#40)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:16:57 PM EST
    so I don't know what hearing she missed. Not that it matters. She is taking the fall for Salazar but Obama can't seriously believe that he can stay without continued political damage imo.

    Parent
    The president does not know why (none / 0) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    Ms. Birnbaun is leaving or the circumstances, since he has not had a chance to talk with Ken Salazar yet.

    Parent
    Modifications (none / 0) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:07:44 AM EST
       Among the types of drilling permits that the minerals agency is still granting are called bypass permits. These allow an operator to drill around a mechanical problem in the original hole to the original target from the existing wellbore.

        Five days before the explosion, the Deepwater Horizon requested and received a revised bypass permit, which was the last drilling permit the rig received from the minerals agency before the explosion. The bore was created and it was the faulty cementing or plugging of that hole that has been cited as one of the causes of the explosion.
    NYT - p2



    Parent
    Did you read that the BOP (none / 0) (#29)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    had over 200 "modifications" done to it after the manufacturer sold it to them?  It took days to figure out what sort of modifications had been done to it before they could even begin to attempt to make it operational.  By that time though, I read from techheads that the erosion due to the pressure that that torrent is under would have eroded the thing beyond working. One of the "modifications"  made one of the operating systems work completely in reverse?  I wonder if the new permit had anything to do with a very damaged BOP possibly coming home to roost?

    Parent
    Yeah, I found this too this a.m. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:37:51 AM EST
    in my search for new facts.  Somberly sobering

    Parent
    Dan Froomkin (HuffPo) (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 27, 2010 at 09:48:21 AM EST
    offers a compilation of steps offered by experts that President Obama should take, from stopping the gusher, containment and clean-up, transparency, and seizing the moment to enact new regulations and assure effective enforcement.  Froomkin's frustration is apparent in his take that "Obama has appeared almost scarily unengaged from what the public increasingly recognizes as a national emergency."  The question he asks is will Obama respond with another of his now familiar outbursts of anger and no follow-through?  Now, this may be unfair, but it codifies much of the worry as well as the exact steps recommended by several of us TL commenters--not for the last day or two, but shortly after the April 20th blowout.  Foundational to addressing this catastrophe are the Administration's recognition that BP's and the US interests are not the same. A good start in this regard is making it clear that BP is not the final decision-maker about anything; transparency and honesty of technical and scientific assessments will be a hallmark of the response.  BP's efforts should be focused on stopping the blow (but with supervision, not oversight--are two relief wells adequate?) and containment and clean-up taken over by governmental agencies. All spilled  oil, not only that which is visible to the beachcomber, needs to be addressed.  And, as Blue states, the moratorium should be unequivocal; A DOJ investigation should be concurrent with the technical review (fines, even big ones seem to do nothing, a little jail time for BP officials or Administration cohorts, if warranted, would do wonders); and regulations should be set forth, including requiring relief wells to be drilled at the same time as the main well.

    Froomkin makes sense (none / 0) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:00:01 AM EST
    as usual.

    Important to split this whole catastrophe up into its two parts, stopping the flow and cleaning up the mess.  As far as I've heard from actually knowledgeable people (not the ignorant asshats, like the guy on Fox recently who railed that as soon as the spill started, the U.S. should have taken BP off the job and sent Navy SEAL divers down to plug up the well-- truly breathtaking), BP has been proceeding logically and sensibly from one step to the next in trying to stop this, sequentially trying things that have the least chance of making it worse.

    But the response to the leak itself, which appears to be close to zero other than massive use of questionable dispersants to send the oil down to the sea floor where few people will see it, and ineffective surface booms, is to me utterly baffling.

    This part, seems to me, is where the divergence of interests between BP and the rest of us is really stark, and where the apparent passivity of the government is just baffling.


    Parent

    There was another local (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    news report this morning while I was laying in bed too that yesterday, once again.....oil was washing up on new LA beaches that have so far remained untouched and skimmers were just sitting there at the nearby docks.  The local people being interviewed were livid. Once again if Allen is running this as he claims and the administration attempts to claim, someone needs to fire his ass now!

    Parent
    17 countries have offered help (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by nycstray on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    I was floored when I heard that yesterday. We should have all hands on deck out there cleaning and containing. We could be a month into building the sand barriers right now. Saw a breaking news flash earlier this AM, sounds like we are going to hear even bigger numbers as to how much oil is/was pouring into the gulf . . .

    Parent
    I missed the actual reporting (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:08:31 AM EST
    of the foreign aid offers, but my husband caught it.  He said that nothing thusfar reminded him of Katrina until this happened.  And now we have a Gulf disaster where immediate aid is obviously needed and not being provided and we have those in need on the tube right in our faces again and the devastation in our faces again and we can see the people and hear them but somehow the aid isn't getting there.  I am now having Katrina flashbacks.  And now we have Honore on the tube and he is starting to simmer slightly and calling for the President to Federalize this disaster...and its just like yesterday in so so many many ways.

    Parent
    I wasn't going "Katrina" until I heard (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by nycstray on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    the aid part either.

    I just don't understand why there wasn't a massive effort to stop the oil flow to the shore sooner. I'm talking just like working a wildfire line or sandbagging before a flood. Letting BP work on stopping the well while someone else is coordinating and fighting the oil reaching the shore. It just makes me sick the way they are dealing with the already spilled oil . . .

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    and the "traffic" in the gulf excuse... PATHETIC.

    Parent
    O's giving a PC now (none / 0) (#32)
    by nycstray on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:51:40 AM EST
    apparently we have to wait until everyone is extremely p*ssed off to get "aggressive" action. And it's now officially the worst in US history.

    Parent
    Factoid (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:58:54 AM EST
    This is Obama's first full press conference in 308 days.  In contrast, GWB's longest gap was 204 days.

    Parent
    Logistics (none / 0) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 27, 2010 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    The traffic is a real logistics issue.  The priority for traffic was for plugging the whole.  The priority should have been shifted to containment (even a simple curtain proposal would have been a large help) and clean up and then having the plug operation work around the c and c.  Control of traffic is the responsibility of the Coast Guard and this brilliant 'brain trust'  couldn't manage c and c?

    Personally, I would like to see Allen go.  He's got too much admiration for BP and should have been the one to set the priorities and the logistics.

    Parent

    Hey, we're 'mericans (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    We will do it the 'merican way no matter how FU it is.

    Parent
    And we refuse to learn (none / 0) (#28)
    by nycstray on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:32:41 AM EST
    from our past mistakes . . .

    Parent
    Carville and ?? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    Nungessen?  They have been very vocal.... yesterday, talking about Obama's visit, they said the President needs to see this and then he will know BP and his people are not being honest with him.

    I don't see how the admin can listen to BP/Allen then watch media coverage and think this is organganized.  Looks like there will neeed to be a mass order of respiratory gear as some fishermen had to be called down due to illness.

    Parent

    When Donna Brazile says (none / 0) (#31)
    by jbindc on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    "One of the problems I have with the administration is that they're not tough enough. They are waiting for BP to say, `oh, we've got a new plan to stop the oil leak.' They need to stop it, contain it, clean it up, and try to help us conserve our coastal wetlands," said Brazile, who is from New Orleans, on ABC's "This Week."

    You know they're in trouble.

    Parent

    Wow. That is surprising. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:06:30 PM EST
    Who knew she had any problems with this admin ever?

    Parent
    Hey Donna (none / 0) (#41)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:20:47 PM EST
    Gotta love your new Democratic Party.

    Conserving our coastal wetlands does not stand a chance against campaign contributions from the oil companies. The coasts are the "bus" with all the other principles that the New Democratic Party has abandoned.

    Parent

    Of course (2.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jbindc on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:35:36 PM EST
    It's her hometown that's affected.  I hate to be so cyncial, but if something like this was happening, say, in the Great Lakes, do you think she'd care as much?

    Parent
    Hey! (1.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Thu May 27, 2010 at 05:19:30 PM EST
    I must have done something right!  I got a "2" from sher instead of a "1"!  Woo Hoo!

    Parent
    BP won't allow them to wear respirators. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    I'm guessing they don't like the optics. Where is OSHA????

    Parent
    WTF?! (none / 0) (#35)
    by nycstray on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    Hope BP is ready to put together a health fund similar to the 911 one that will take care of folks for the duration/their lifetime . . .

    Parent
    I'm sure they will. Aren't you? (none / 0) (#37)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:11:00 PM EST
    They care. Right?

    Parent
    could not agree more! (none / 0) (#50)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    A good start in this regard is making it clear that BP is not the final decision-maker about anything; transparency and honesty of technical and scientific assessments will be a hallmark of the response.  BP's efforts should be focused on stopping the blow (but with supervision, not oversight--are two relief wells adequate?) and containment and clean-up taken over by governmental agencies. All spilled  oil, not only that which is visible to the beachcomber, needs to be addressed.


    Parent
    In his press conference, the president (none / 0) (#53)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 27, 2010 at 02:05:22 PM EST
    said, what many of us have maintained, that the Oil Pollution Act gives power to the US government to direct BP and take over  the disaster.  While confusing, he also said that US is in charge and BP is in direct charge. As for stopping the 'leak', we do not have superior technology to BP (although we told BP to drill two relief wells and they only wanted one--I would have insisted on three), but on the surface we are 'much more involved, it is more or less under our direction'. On a question about Katrina analogies, he will leave that for an historical judgment, in the context of the blow being unprecedented. Actually, I do agree that Katrina references no matter how close or far from the mark one may feel it is,  are unproductive--they only generate defensiveness and partisanship when neither are needed at this point. .We are still entertaining good Democratic and Republican ideas and evaluating them, including for cost effectiveness, and moving with dispatch on Jindal's Republican idea of two weeks ago (we are going to do it). As for those "modifications" the act mandates a yes or no within 30 days, so, of course, a yes (waiver) is given, and a no apparently not so much. BP and the public interest are aligned to the extent that both want the wellhead capped (yes, but how, capture the oil or kill the well); but the interest of BP in coming forward with truths, say on rate of flow, are not aligned (BP would like to minimize its damages).  We have fallen short a bit here, so now we will verify. In retrospect, the president is sticking to his oil as an energy strategy framework, but was wrong in his belief that big oil had its act together in worst case scenarios.  I was glad when the press conference was over.

    Parent
    Going as hoped (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 27, 2010 at 09:49:43 AM EST
    So far, the process is going as planned.  Not confirmed, but Thad Allen announced that the mud was holding down the oil.  They are still having problems holding the pressure at 0.  Once they can hold it, they can pump the concrete.

    Yes, so far so good. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 27, 2010 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    Any stoppage, even if a reduction and temporary, is a God-send. Relief wells will, apparently, be operational mid-August to complete the job, if need be.  The containment and clean-up will, of course, remain as will the devastating effects.  Even with a best case scenario on this blow, the country is not out of the woods.  The TV anchors will go back to reporting on the latest diet of some movie star, and BP and its governmental handmaidens will be home free.

    Parent
    The long term ramifications of this (none / 0) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:26:49 AM EST
    catastrophe may never be fully understood. We can see what is happening now to the beaches, the wild life and hear about the effects on the fishing and tourist industries.

    We have no real idea what effects the oil and the disbursement agents will have on the health and welfare of the people in this country.

    I've seen pictures of oil at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Does this mean that there is a chance that the effects can move beyond the Gulf and into the river ways? I haven't heard anyone discuss this so maybe my fears on this are unwarranted.

    Parent

    the whole ecosystem (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:55:07 AM EST
    is at risk.  But water generally flows the other way which should help.  Unless it's the nile.

    Parent
    Thanks for the info (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:10:50 AM EST
    As you can see, I am totally ignorant about the direction water flows.

    Parent
    You're doing okay (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:21:39 AM EST
    You're doing fine.  In early May the talk was that the Mississippi River would help prevent the oil from reaching the shore... "logical assumptions" do not always hold true.

    In addition, the fact that estuaries are some of the most important ecosystems and disruption of them disrupts ecosystems both upstream and downstream is a huge factor.  For instance small changes in salinity at the estuary caused by the oil spill can disrupt life upstream in the River.

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    it is almost certain the effects of this will be felt upriver - just think of all the birds and fish that will be carrying things - plus of course as you mentioned the estuary is a hugely important area.  The oil itself will probably stay in the gulf for the most part.

    Parent
    I was also wondering about upstream (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Thu May 27, 2010 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    effects. I received some nice bread flour yesterday that was from the upper banks of the river. Got me thinking . . .

    Parent
    Not sure how oil will behave during (none / 0) (#49)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 01:11:52 PM EST
    a hurricane. Up stream and inland areas might well be affected. And then again there is the dispersant (sorry to keep on and on about it) and that does not behave like oil. I've wondered if it could affect ground water, and how it travels thru water and the seafloor and coastal areas.

    Parent
    Dispersant (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 27, 2010 at 01:32:01 PM EST
    The possible long term health hazards of that agent is a major concern to me.

    Parent
    And, the drilling mud. (none / 0) (#54)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 27, 2010 at 02:36:53 PM EST


    Parent
    A lot of drilling mud (none / 0) (#56)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 03:54:24 PM EST
    has just been released with the top kill. I've read there are several different kinds of drilling fluid. Do you know what is in the mud they are using here?

    Parent
    No, I have been trying to (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 27, 2010 at 04:56:47 PM EST
    determine this. Oil Drum discusses several including those with a radioactive derivation, such as barite,  cesium and even depleted uranium. But, supposedly a non-toxic water-based mixture is being used, something heavier than oil to push it down.  We need to know more.

    Parent
    Oh Jesus Christ (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    Obama is admitting that the cleanup efforts have been singularly organized by the Fed Government, and he admits the response hasn't been as "nimble" as we would like.  "Nimble"?   Didn't Bush say something like that too during Katrina?  I swear someone did........loose NIMBLE as your excuse word now please.  It makes me gag.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:14:52 PM EST
    Obama will play a guitar too.

    Parent
    Ooops, I mean lose (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:27:03 PM EST
    He's already a little loose on this :)

    Parent
    It was (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:26:08 PM EST
    Bush FEMA spokeswoman Nicol Andrews, describing how a FEMA team had been sent to NOLA two days before hurricane landfall.  That was nimble.  And Obama is not making sense right now either about the administration's response time and success.  How could he have been this unsuccessful if he had been right on top of this since day one.  How can we be so short on supplies and manpower if this has been the number one priority since the day it happened?

    Parent
    When he was giving numbers of (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by nycstray on Thu May 27, 2010 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    people on site, I'm betting he's counting all the volunteers cleaning off wildlife . . .

    Parent
    I was gob-smacked by that, too (none / 0) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 27, 2010 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    He needs to be taken on a tour down there by Nungassen and Carville, and/or some of the many national reporters who keep reporting back they're seeing zero signs anywhere of skimming and other mitigation efforts.

    Parent
    I was reading some rumors on (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 27, 2010 at 10:33:29 AM EST
    techie blogs that BP may have been taking short cuts because the Deepwater Horizon was due to drill elsewhere, and it looks like there may be truth to that via this testimony.

    BP's drilling operations were about six weeks behind schedule when the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded April 20, according to documents cited Wednesday at a hearing examining the cause of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

    Reading from BP documents that have not been made public, BP safety leader Steve Tink said his company had applied to use the Deepwater Horizon in another oilfield on March 8, 43 days before the accident.

    BP was paying Transocean, the company that leased the rig to BP and ran it on BP's behalf, $533,000 a day, Transocean safety official Adrian Rose testified.

    The figures were drawn out of the witnesses by a member of the investigative panel, Jason Mathews of the federal Minerals Management Service.

    The hearings, being conducted by MMS and the Coast Guard, resumed Wednesday after a two-week hiatus. Wednesday was the third day of testimony; the hearings will continue today.
    I've followed nola.com too (none / 0) (#47)
    by ZtoA on Thu May 27, 2010 at 01:03:10 PM EST
    more from that article you linked to:


    Smith testified that there is an inherent conflict on any drilling rig between the company that's leasing the rig and oilfield and the drilling operators. He said the "company man" represents a firm that leases the rig and often pays $500,000 a day to drill for the oil, so is concerned about speed and cost. The crew, meanwhile, is generally more concerned about safety and controlling the well, he said.

    "That's a natural point of conflict that I've seen," Smith said. "Some (company men) have become outright adversaries, but they're the people paying the bills. They control helicopters, the boats, what's going on and off the rig. But I have to say, most of them are safety-conscious."

    So much for "Obama can't do anything because its BP's equipment and expertise". Its neither actually. And BP has provided management - direction and goals and that should have been US government for weeks now.

    Parent

    Obama to Announce Moratorium on Drilling Permits | 58 comments (58 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment